Subscribe To

Friday, 20 May 2016

Alexander Mercouris, on CrossTalk

Alexander
Mercouris, Editor-in-Chief of The Duran, discusses topics ranging
from Syria, Ukraine, Russia, and the US presidential race on RT's
most acclaimed debate program, CrossTalk.

“The
Syrian quagmire: What are Washington’s goals and who exactly are
the moderates? In Ukraine, now all journalists are a target – so
much for western values. Also, the US Army will have you believe
America is in danger of being ‘outgunned’ by Russia. And the soap
opera known as the US presidential race.”

Though
it has attracted little attention, a book by a retired British
general, Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff, is predicting Russia is
going to attack NATO next year.

General
Shirreff, who was NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe
from 2011 to 2014, has even said in which month next year the attack
will take place. According to him it will be in May 2017. That
month Russia will apparently conquer eastern Ukraine and Latvia
whilst threatening NATO with nuclear war.

Lest
anyone think these are the isolated ravings of a madman, the book was
launched at the London offices of Britain’s Royal United Services
Institute and contains a foreword by none other than US Admiral James
Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who writes
portentously that:

“Under
President Putin, Russia has charted a dangerous course that, if it is
allowed to continue, may lead inexorably to a clash with Nato. And
that will mean a war that could so easily go nuclear.”

Similarly
wild – though rather less precise – warnings of coming war have
been made by other NATO generals including US Air Force General
Breedlove – Stavridis’s successor – and by Breedlove’s
successor, US Army General Scaparrotti.

Before
anyone starts worrying that we have fallen into the world of Doctor
Strangelove, I should say that General Shirreff is talking nonsense.
World War III is not going to happen next year and Russia is not
planning to attack Latvia next May.

General
Shirreff’s comments about Russia show that he is profoundly
ignorant of the country and its people and has no understanding at
all of the thinking of its leaders. If he did he would know that he
was talking nonsense.

Do
General Shirreff and NATO’s other military leaders however actually
believe any of the nonsense they are saying?

In
General Shirreff’s case it is impossible to avoid the feeling that
his book is intended to make him money so that he can provide
financially for his retirement. Predicting war is it seems a good
sell.

That
however cannot be the whole story. It does not explain why someone
like Stavridis would want to endorse General Shirreff’s book.

There
is of course a strong element behind these warnings of the military
lobbying aggressively for more money.

In
Shirreff’s case it is known that he frequently clashed with
Britain’s political leaders over what he felt was their financial
neglect of the military. Playing up the threat of war is the classic
way to panic politicians and the public into opening their purse
strings.

There
is no doubt much of the hysteria is about that, especially at a time
when the US is lobbying furiously to get European members of NATO to
increase their defence budgets.

Nonetheless
I suspect that there is a core of genuine alarm buried deep inside
these warnings.

Given
that NATO spends so much more than Russia on defence the idea that
Russia might attack NATO – the world’s most powerful military
alliance – must appear absurd to most people. However that does not
take into account how the world might seem to NATO’s senior
military.

Until
very recently these people inhabited a mental world where since the
end of the Cold War their overwhelming military superiority over
Russia was something they took for granted.

Unsurprisingly
this complacent assumption of overwhelming superiority in the end
influenced their behaviour.

With
the USSR gone NATO military leaders felt free to do what they wanted
without fear of Soviet intervention. Given the USSR’s previous
role of balancing NATO power in any armed conflict that might arise,
that appeared to remove for NATO the risk of defeat. Not
surprisingly – especially given the West’s exceptionalist and
universalist ideology – that meant that the temptation for the
Western powers to throw their weight around became irresistible.

The
result was a series of wars launched almost casually with minimal
public discussion against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What
has now hit the NATO leaders hard is the shocking realisation that
their assumption of overwhelming superiority over Russia is wrong.

In
a string of military campaigns – in Chechnya in 1999, against
Georgia in 2008, in Crimea in 2014 and, most spectacularly, in Syria
in 2015 and since – the Russian military has gone from victory to
victory, proving that it is not merely a force to be reckoned with
but that in terms of sheer proficiency and technological competence
it is a match for the best in NATO.

The
Syrian operation has been the most alarming of all. In that theatre
both Russia and the US are militarily involved. It is therefore
possible to make direct comparisons between the militaries of the two
countries. The fact the Russian military in Syria appears in some
respects to have actually outperformed the US military must for US
and NATO leaders – brought up to believe in the myth of their own
invincibility – be particularly alarming.

It
does not help that over the same period that the Russian military has
gone from victory to victory the US and NATO have experienced one
setback after another.

The
NATO military that feels the most alarmed and humiliated is the
British.

Until
about a decade ago the British military believed themselves to be the
best in NATO and the strongest in NATO after the US. As a British
citizen I have had to listen to any number of lectures from proud
British patriots telling me how much better their army is compared to
that of the US.

In
the event, over the last decade, the British military has experienced
one defeat after another.

It
had to be rescued by the US military in Basra. It was badly defeated
in Helmand. During the air campaign against Libya it found it could
not sustain the bombing campaign against Gaddafi’s troops without
US help. In Syria – a theatre where both the US and the Russians
are present – it has proved completely ineffective.

General
Shirreff is a British general and it would not be surprising if he
felt the British military’s humiliation especially keenly.

Given
the profound shock NATO commanders have experienced as their core
assumption of effortless superiority over the Russians collapses all
around them, it is not surprising if they are now furiously lobbying
for more troops and more bases in Europe so that they can return to
the position of unchallengeable superiority they had grown accustomed
to.

That
in my opinion is what is driving their warnings and their
increasingly shrill demands for more money and more troops.

Though
it is doubtful that anyone takes General Shirreff and his warnings
very seriously, it would be unwise to be complacent about all this.

General
Shirreff admits in his book that the Russians are becoming
increasingly worried at the spread of NATO bases around their
territory. That is what he says is driving them towards war.

General
Shirreff’s “solution” to this problem – shared with him by
all the other top commanders of NATO – is however to deploy even
more NATO troops and even more NATO bases even closer to Russia.

The
logical fallacy is obvious. What General Shirreff proposes cannot
make the situation better. It can only make it worse.

If
General Shirreff had the courage to accept his own logic he would see
that the way to reduce tension in Europe and end forever the risk of
war is to reduce the number of NATO troops close to Russia, not
increase them.

As
for seeking to gain the sort of military superiority over Russia that
NATO once believed it had, a realistic assessment of the situation in
Europe would recognise that that is impossible. Russia unlike every
other European country is a continental sized Great Power. By
definition that makes it militarily more powerful than any other
European country or combination of countries is or can ever be.
Amongst the NATO powers only the US can match it.

That
does not make Russia aggressive or expansionist. It does however
make it dangerous to threaten.

The
way to secure peace in Europe is not through confrontation with
Russia but through a rapprochement with it. That however would mean
accepting that Russia is a Great Power and is entitled to be treated
as one.

Instead
by treating Russia as a mortal enemy General Sherriff and his NATO
comrades risk making it one.